The non-asterisked NFLPA, back when it was a labor union, advised incoming rookies to attend last month’s Scouting Combine.

The NFLPA*, now a trade association, reportedly wants those incoming rookie to eschew any invitation to attend next month’s draft.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that “[t]he NFLPA already has contacted 17 top prospects that ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft and informed them not to go.”

The NFLPA* has even considered making the players available on another network for post-pick interviews.

Frankly, we’re not sure how the NFLPA* can tell the incoming rookies to do anything. The NFLPA* no longer has any control over the players. Even when the NFLPA* was the NFLPA, they couldn’t tell players who have yet to be drafted to do anything.

Bottom line? This could get interesting.

Bewbies

03-14-2011, 05:19 PM

I'd like to say I'm strong enough to boycott the draft too. If millions and millions and millions of people did the same I think the NFL would get the message. Quick.

But, that won't happen, my draft party is already scheduled. LMAO

Von Dumbass

03-14-2011, 05:27 PM

This would be the first time I'd get to see a top 10 draft pick walk on the stage holding a Broncos jersey. :cuss:

Billay

03-14-2011, 05:28 PM

Bottoms up bottoms up

KurtCobain

03-14-2011, 05:33 PM

This would be the first time I'd get to see a top 10 draft pick walk on the stage holding a Broncos jersey. :cuss:

That's nothing to be proud of. It means you suck. The only true prize for sucking was Peyton Manning.

Nightfyre

03-14-2011, 05:43 PM

What incentivd would these rooks have to boycott? Thye are the last class untouched by a payscale. Unless I misunderstand, that would be a monumental mistake.

jd1020

03-14-2011, 05:44 PM

Not quite sure why any player would boycott a once in a lifetime opportunity.

philfree

03-14-2011, 05:50 PM

Sounds like to me the NFLPA is still acting as a union. Throw the lawsuit out of court....

PhilFree:arrow:

BryanBusby

03-14-2011, 05:53 PM

Sounds like to me the NFLPA is still acting as a union. Throw the lawsuit out of court....

PhilFree:arrow:

You should get a better understanding of how a trade organization runs.

raybec 4

03-14-2011, 05:53 PM

What incentivd would these rooks have to boycott? Thye are the last class untouched by a payscale. Unless I misunderstand, that would be a monumental mistake.

THe union will come back soon enough, they will be labeled as scabs and alienated before they even step foot on the field.

Detoxing

03-14-2011, 05:54 PM

Fucking stupid ass NFLPA*

Why the fuck would a player wanna do that? Getting drafted is one of the greatest events to occur in a player's life. It's like asking someone not to attend their own graduation because the teachers are striking. GTFO with that shit, NFLPA.

Just goes to show how selfish they are.

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 05:57 PM

Those greedy ass SOB's can kiss my ass. The owners offered MORE than a fair offer and they snubbed their noses at them like they weren't offering enough BILLIONS to the players. You can take your dangerous occupation arguement and shove that up your keyster as well. My job is plenty dangerous and I get paid a small fraction of what the poor 'ol deprived millionairs get for playing one game a week for 1/3 of the year. If the multi-million dollar annual contracts isn't enough to justify the risk of injury, then take your pansy ass back to college or get a regular job like the rest of us blue collar workers. I back the owners 100% and would be willing to lose a year of football to put these panseys back in their place and be happy to make millions for playing a game for a living.

philfree

03-14-2011, 06:01 PM

You should get a better understanding of how a trade organization runs.

That probably goes for every poster here but sure. I do know the players have the legal right to do what they're doing with decertification but to me it seems bogus.

PhilFree:arrow:

Detoxing

03-14-2011, 06:04 PM

That probably goes for every poster here but sure. I do know the players have the legal right to do what they're doing with decertification but to me it seems bogus.

PhilFree:arrow:

It's a fucking hissy fit is what this is. They're coming off like a bunch of Ex-wives.

"well, if you're not fucking me anymore, Ima make sure you can't fuck the new girl either"

Crush

03-14-2011, 06:10 PM

This would be the first time I'd get to see a top 10 draft pick walk on the stage holding a Broncos jersey. :cuss:

Don't worry, you will get to see it next year and the year after that.

Brock

03-14-2011, 06:26 PM

Those greedy ass SOB's can kiss my ass. The owners offered MORE than a fair offer and they snubbed their noses at them like they weren't offering enough BILLIONS to the players. You can take your dangerous occupation arguement and shove that up your keyster as well. My job is plenty dangerous and I get paid a small fraction of what the poor 'ol deprived millionairs get for playing one game a week for 1/3 of the year. If the multi-million dollar annual contracts isn't enough to justify the risk of injury, then take your pansy ass back to college or get a regular job like the rest of us blue collar workers. I back the owners 100% and would be willing to lose a year of football to put these panseys back in their place and be happy to make millions for playing a game for a living.

Nobody gives a shit what you do for a living.

BigMeatballDave

03-14-2011, 06:46 PM

Those greedy ass SOB's can kiss my ass. The owners offered MORE than a fair offer and they snubbed their noses at them like they weren't offering enough BILLIONS to the players. You can take your dangerous occupation arguement and shove that up your keyster as well. My job is plenty dangerous and I get paid a small fraction of what the poor 'ol deprived millionairs get for playing one game a week for 1/3 of the year. If the multi-million dollar annual contracts isn't enough to justify the risk of injury, then take your pansy ass back to college or get a regular job like the rest of us blue collar workers. I back the owners 100% and would be willing to lose a year of football to put these panseys back in their place and be happy to make millions for playing a game for a living.Have fun licking The Man's 'taint.

BigMeatballDave

03-14-2011, 06:50 PM

I back the owners 100%Why? The owners are the ones who opted out of the CBA. The owners are the ones who want to double the 1 billion they get off the top. Its a Lockout. The players seemed to be OK with what they had.

You're right, that's a point only an ignorant douchebag would try to make.

DeezNutz

03-14-2011, 07:06 PM

I could be mistaken but I think they're talking about the draft event in new york city itself not the draft as a whole.
Posted via Mobile Device

Of course they are. And the "union" is suggesting alternative places for appearances and interviews.

Why so many are apt to side with ownership is a strange thing in my view.

Brock

03-14-2011, 07:08 PM

Of course they are. And the "union" is suggesting alternative places for appearances and interviews.

Why so many are apt to side with ownership is a strange thing in my view.

Because these guys get paid MILLIONS TO PLAY A FREAKING GAME!!!!1111oneone

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 07:08 PM

Why? The owners are the ones who opted out of the CBA. The owners are the ones who want to double the 1 billion they get off the top. Its a Lockout. The players seemed to be OK with what they had.

Not that your previous reply deserves a response... But, the NFL is a buisness and the men who invested hundreds of millions of their personal cash deserve the opportunity to make what they feel is fair. The recession dug into the owners profit margins more than they anticipated and it may get worse with multiple problems worldwide. When fans don't show up and spend cash at the stadium, the players still get paid. Had the players taken a loss, I guaran-damn-tee you they would have voided the contract as well.

DeezNutz

03-14-2011, 07:09 PM

Because these guys get paid MILLIONS TO PLAY A FREAKING GAME!!!!1111oneone

Somewhere, Clark Millgram is standing in white jacket, instructing True Fans to strike the lever one more time.

BigMeatballDave

03-14-2011, 07:13 PM

ROFLI'de have to gather a couple guys to pry your cock sucking lips away first. It's not worth the effort...I'm not an owner nut-hugger.

BryanBusby

03-14-2011, 07:17 PM

Why so many are apt to side with ownership is a strange thing in my view.
People defend tax breaks on the billionaires in the good name of conservatism, so it really shouldn't be surprising.

Think I'm going to stick with the fuck em both side.

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 07:17 PM

Bottom line... It's a buisness with thousands of "scabs" waiting in line for an opportunity to play in the NFL. If you don't like the offer on the table, move on and give the next man an opportunity to become a millionair.

Brock

03-14-2011, 07:20 PM

Bottom line... It's a buisness with thousands of "scabs" waiting in line for an opportunity to play in the NFL. If you don't like the offer on the table, move on and give the next man an opportunity to become a millionair.

Hooray for UFL football.

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 07:26 PM

Hooray for UFL football.

OK Dane McWannabe.... I've yet to read your opinion, just a bunch of smart ass quirks. Should the owners cave to every union demand, recession be damned? Or are they entitled to make a fair profit margin after investing hundreds of millions of their own money? Who does half filled stadiums effect more, players or owners? And would players take an optional void in their contract if they made less than anticipated?

BigMeatballDave

03-14-2011, 07:27 PM

Bottom line... It's a buisness with thousands of "scabs" waiting in line for an opportunity to play in the NFL. If you don't like the offer on the table, move on and give the next man an opportunity to become a millionair.:rolleyes: Yeah, because any Joe Blow can play this game at a high level. Stupid.

Brock

03-14-2011, 07:29 PM

OK Dane McWannabe.... I've yet to read your opinion, just a bunch of smart ass quirks. Should the owners cave to every union demand, recession be damned? Or are they entitled to make a fair profit margin after investing hundreds of millions of their own money? Who does half filled stadiums effect more, players or owners? And would players take an optional void in their contract if they made less than anticipated?

Where are these half filled stadiums you refer to?

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 07:32 PM

Where are these half filled stadiums you refer to?

If you don't think the recession had an effect of NFL attendance you're a fugtard. Care to answer my questions, Brock?

Brock

03-14-2011, 07:33 PM

If you don't think the recession had an effect of NFL attendance you're a fugtard. Care to answer my questions, Brock?

Where are these half filled stadiums you refer to? I don't care about your childish name calling.

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 07:35 PM

:rolleyes: Yeah, because any Joe Blow can play this game at a high level. Stupid.

Hey dipshit... The last offer on the table would have payed those thay EARNED it pretty damn well. It's the rookie busts that took the money and ran (Jamarcuss Russell) that wouldn't get top dollar w/o producing on the field first.

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 07:36 PM

Where are these half filled stadiums you refer to? I don't care about your childish name calling.

Your arguing for the sake of arguing... No need to respond.

Brock

03-14-2011, 07:43 PM

Your arguing for the sake of arguing... No need to respond.

No need to respond, because there are no half filled stadiums, ie you're lying.

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 07:55 PM

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

Half filled was just a figure of speech, douche bag. And I doubt the numbers are true given the games I watched in Arrowhead. The mid levels had more empty seats than people sitting in them and the upper deck had a ton of seats empty. If you believe the Chiefs had 88% of their seats attended, you're extremely gullible.

Brock

03-14-2011, 07:56 PM

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

Half filled was just a figure of speech, douche bag. And I doubt the numbers are true given the games I watched in Arrowhead. The mid levels had more empty seats than people sitting in them and the upper deck had a ton of seats empty. If you believe the Chiefs had 88% of their seats attended, you're extremely gullible.

A figure of speech? Suuure.

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 08:00 PM

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

Half filled was just a figure of speech, douche bag. And I doubt the numbers are true given the games I watched in Arrowhead. The mid levels had more empty seats than people sitting in them and the upper deck had a ton of seats empty. If you believe the Chiefs had 88% of their seats attended, you're extremely gullible.

The overwhelming majority of all NFL revenues come from the broadcast rights fee. This year, the NFL is slated for $9 billion in revenues alone.

Attendance is not an issue and in most cases, the local affiliate or local businesses will purchase any remaining tickets so that NFL teams aren't blacked out locally.

Regardless of whether or not you witnessed empty seats, the Chiefs avoided any blackouts, which is by far, the most important issue.

Chiefaholic

03-14-2011, 08:03 PM

Are you sure you're not a woman? Read the damn link and tell me attendance hasn't been effected by the recession. Regardless, we're straying away from the topic of the initial post... drop it and agree to disagree.

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 08:03 PM

If you don't think the recession had an effect of NFL attendance you're a fugtard. Care to answer my questions, Brock?

Who cares? The owners and networks don't. Why should you?

Viewership was up 31% in 2010. ESPN agreed to pay $2 BILLION per year to air 20 MNF games per season (including four pre-season games).

Attendance is no longer a make or break for any franchise and if it were, the owners would be lowering ticket prices, not raising them.

chopper

03-14-2011, 08:05 PM

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

Half filled was just a figure of speech, douche bag. And I doubt the numbers are true given the games I watched in Arrowhead. The mid levels had more empty seats than people sitting in them and the upper deck had a ton of seats empty. If you believe the Chiefs had 88% of their seats attended, you're extremely gullible.

How pissed is London that they got to see the 49ers vs the Bills?

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 08:08 PM

Are you sure you're not a woman? Read the damn link and tell me attendance hasn't been effected by the recession.

Actually, it's the proliferation of HDTV's, home theater and the televised broadcasts that have played a much bigger factor in declining sales in some cities.

Keep in mind that the teams at the bottom are smaller market teams that have traditionally had issues with ticket sales.

CrazyHorse

03-14-2011, 08:35 PM

The overwhelming majority of all NFL revenues come from the broadcast rights fee. This year, the NFL is slated for $9 billion in revenues alone.

Attendance is not an issue and in most cases, the local affiliate or local businesses will purchase any remaining tickets so that NFL teams aren't blacked out locally.

Regardless of whether or not you witnessed empty seats, the Chiefs avoided any blackouts, which is by far, the most important issue.

Funny, when the NFL had the largest explosion in popularity, the stadium was full. You've been able to watch football on TV for awhile now. Thats not new. Anymore than HD is the reason people stay home. Thats just dumb as hell.

They didn't have any blackouts because the Chiefs have been a team to sell out every game every year for several years. The last 2 they havent done so well. But still sell out 95% before the 1st game is played. People may not attend if the team sucks. If you dont think they give a damn, you havent been getting emails everyday trying to sell you tickets for the last 6 months. I have. I can tell that they are desperate to sell tickets right now because the team production has been so bad the last few seasons. Its about to catch up to them.

The NFL is always trying to recruit the next generation of fans. The best way to achieve fan loyalty is participation. Not sitting at the TV watching the game. After going to my 1st game at Arrowhead, my interest in not just football, but he Chiefs in particular doubled to say the least.

Tickets, parking, consessions and merchandise make a difference to these owners. A huge difference.

CrazyHorse

03-14-2011, 08:37 PM

Where are these half filled stadiums you refer to? I don't care about your childish name calling.

KC

Just Passin' By

03-14-2011, 08:47 PM

Not that your previous reply deserves a response... But, the NFL is a buisness and the men who invested hundreds of millions of their personal cash deserve the opportunity to make what they feel is fair. The recession dug into the owners profit margins more than they anticipated and it may get worse with multiple problems worldwide. When fans don't show up and spend cash at the stadium, the players still get paid. Had the players taken a loss, I guaran-damn-tee you they would have voided the contract as well.

The players deserve the opportunity to make what they feel is fair, as well. That's why they have the whole collective bargaining mechanism.

Bottom line... It's a buisness with thousands of "scabs" waiting in line for an opportunity to play in the NFL. If you don't like the offer on the table, move on and give the next man an opportunity to become a millionair.

Again, the whole collective bargaining thing. You seem confused as to the difference between how a unions and non-union workers deal with managements, particularly in the case of the major sports leagues.

OK Dane McWannabe.... I've yet to read your opinion, just a bunch of smart ass quirks. Should the owners cave to every union demand, recession be damned? Or are they entitled to make a fair profit margin after investing hundreds of millions of their own money? Who does half filled stadiums effect more, players or owners? And would players take an optional void in their contract if they made less than anticipated?

The owners were the ones who opted out of the last CBA. The owners were the ones making the demands. Why are you now trying to switch this around and act as if it's the players making all the demands?

Also, what's a fair profit margin, and how do you know the owners aren't making a fair profit?

ElGringo

03-14-2011, 08:50 PM

To answer the poll question, originally yes, it was interesting news, however, this has just turned into the same argument being had in the other thread. I do enjoy the discussion, but afraid I will get even more confused now.

Pawnmower

03-14-2011, 09:01 PM

Why so many are apt to side with ownership is a strange thing in my view.

Maybe its people like me who own a business and cant imagine being told how to run it and how much I would have to pay employees etc...

CrazyHorse

03-14-2011, 09:11 PM

The players deserve the opportunity to make what they feel is fair, as well. That's why they have the whole collective bargaining mechanism.

Again, the whole collective bargaining thing. You seem confused as to the difference between how a unions and non-union workers deal with managements, particularly in the case of the major sports leagues.

The owners were the ones who opted out of the last CBA. The owners were the ones making the demands. Why are you now trying to switch this around and act as if it's the players making all the demands?

Also, what's a fair profit margin, and how do you know the owners aren't making a fair profit?

What are all the demands owners are making?

DeezNutz

03-14-2011, 09:13 PM

Maybe its people like me who own a business and cant imagine being told how to run it and how much I would have to pay employees etc...

And the majority of business models are not applicable to the NFL, so this is a moot point.

BigMeatballDave

03-14-2011, 09:14 PM

Maybe its people like me who own a business and cant imagine being told how to run it and how much I would have to pay employees etc...I doubt your employees are the product.

BigMeatballDave

03-14-2011, 09:17 PM

What are all the demands owners are making?They opted out of a contract because they wanted more money.

Ugly Duck

03-14-2011, 09:18 PM

What are all the demands owners are making?Each of the 32 owners make over $280 million each. Over 50% of that goes to players & staff & stuff. They want to keep more of the $280 million - you know, cost of living & such. 9 billion per year doesn't go as far as it used to, ya know....

Chiefnj2

03-14-2011, 09:20 PM

The owners were the ones who opted out of the last CBA. The owners were the ones making the demands. Why are you now trying to switch this around and act as if it's the players making all the demands?

The owners made lots of concessions last time in order to avoid a strike and/or lockout. They told the union back then that they would likely opt out of the cba, which is why they built in the early opt out date. None of this is a surprise.

Just Passin' By

03-14-2011, 09:33 PM

The owners made lots of concessions last time in order to avoid a strike and/or lockout. They told the union back then that they would likely opt out of the cba, which is why they built in the early opt out date. None of this is a surprise.

How does that make this the players making demands when it's the owners making the demands? How does what happened in 2006 (all but 2 NFL owners signed on to that deal, btw) somehow make the owners demand for more money actually a demand by the players?

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 09:46 PM

Funny, when the NFL had the largest explosion in popularity, the stadium was full. You've been able to watch football on TV for awhile now. Thats not new. Anymore than HD is the reason people stay home. Thats just dumb as hell.

It's becoming so obvious that it's easier to watch a game at home that commissioner Roger Goodell was asked at the NFL meetings last week about the stadium experience competing with the comforts of home.

"It may be more comfortable, but it's not more exciting," he said.

Goodell then said the league is actually concerned about fans figuring out it's more comfortable to watch at home.

"We as a league are focused on it, and it's one of our priorities," he said. "Our challenge is to continue to make it exciting for people who come to our facility. And that comes from a lot of different perspectives. You start with fan conduct. We talk about making sure people feel safe and they have a positive experience when they come to our stadiums. You talk about how to entertain them when they come to our stadiums. We have to do more with technology."

--------------------------------------------

They didn't have any blackouts because the Chiefs have been a team to sell out every game every year for several years. The last 2 they havent done so well. But still sell out 95% before the 1st game is played. People may not attend if the team sucks.

Wrong again.

The Chiefs didn't haven't had blackouts because local ad sponsors and even the Chiefs themselves have bought the remaining tickets necessary to avoid a blackout. There's too much ad revenue lost on a local level for blackouts to occur in most parts of the country, especially in Kansas City.

If you dont think they give a damn, you havent been getting emails everyday trying to sell you tickets for the last 6 months. I have. I can tell that they are desperate to sell tickets right now because the team production has been so bad the last few seasons. Its about to catch up to them.

Why would I receive emails? I love in Los Angeles, not the KC Metro area. Furthermore that's called marketing and it's nothing new.

The Chiefs may have empty seats but it will always be in their best interests to make sure that the games are shown in the KC Metro and I expect no difference when the NFL plays in the Fall (or Fall 2012).

The NFL is always trying to recruit the next generation of fans. The best way to achieve fan loyalty is participation. Not sitting at the TV watching the game. After going to my 1st game at Arrowhead, my interest in not just football, but he Chiefs in particular doubled to say the least.

This is laughable.

There are die hard Chiefs fans in this forum that have NEVER attended a game at Arrowhead or have only done so recently.

I don't think you have even a clue of NFL viewership on television.

Tickets, parking, consessions and merchandise make a difference to these owners. A huge difference.

Huge, huh? Would you like to ballpark that figure? Because I can and I'd hardly call it "huge" especially when compared to TV rights.

Rain Man

03-14-2011, 10:28 PM

I feel sorry for the rookies. They're going to have a once in a lifetime experience ruined.

DBOSHO

03-14-2011, 10:46 PM

I cant imagine not seeing football this year.

Baconeater

03-14-2011, 10:52 PM

I cant imagine not seeing football this year.
Oh, you'll see it...on Saturdays.

It's becoming so obvious that it's easier to watch a game at home that commissioner Roger Goodell was asked at the NFL meetings last week about the stadium experience competing with the comforts of home.

"It may be more comfortable, but it's not more exciting," he said.

Goodell then said the league is actually concerned about fans figuring out it's more comfortable to watch at home.

"We as a league are focused on it, and it's one of our priorities," he said. "Our challenge is to continue to make it exciting for people who come to our facility. And that comes from a lot of different perspectives. You start with fan conduct. We talk about making sure people feel safe and they have a positive experience when they come to our stadiums. You talk about how to entertain them when they come to our stadiums. We have to do more with technology."

--------------------------------------------

Wrong again.

The Chiefs didn't haven't had blackouts because local ad sponsors and even the Chiefs themselves have bought the remaining tickets necessary to avoid a blackout. There's too much ad revenue lost on a local level for blackouts to occur in most parts of the country, especially in Kansas City.

Why would I receive emails? I love in Los Angeles, not the KC Metro area. Furthermore that's called marketing and it's nothing new.

The Chiefs may have empty seats but it will always be in their best interests to make sure that the games are shown in the KC Metro and I expect no difference when the NFL plays in the Fall (or Fall 2012).

This is laughable.

There are die hard Chiefs fans in this forum that have NEVER attended a game at Arrowhead or have only done so recently.

I don't think you have even a clue of NFL viewership on television.

Huge, huh? Would you like to ballpark that figure? Because I can and I'd hardly call it "huge" especially when compared to TV rights.

Wrong again, huh?

I wasnt wrong in the 1st place.

You said that owner could care less if they sell tickets. I say thats not rue and that you're a dumb motherfucker that dont know shit about the inner working of the finacial situaion in the NFL. You just like to crow to hear yourself talk. The problem is that you're the only one impressed with you. thats why your called a fool every day of your life on here. Hundreds right here on this forum. My problem is, I stepped right into your bullshit. I regret it. Now I have to type out a "fuck you're stupid" post as so many others do every day here. I try n0t to get hung up in it, but here I am.

To put a period on it, Ill just say this. The owners want attendance. The owners have always wanted to get people out from in front of the tv and pay for tickets. Its not a revalation.

As for blackouts, I said they sold off 95%. Im aware they sold off ticks to the media, so they could avoid a blackout. I never disputed that. But I did say they didnt see blackout because they sold enough tickets. A clear thinking person would understand that to mean, that with the current trend in dropping ticket prices, if the Chiefs cant sell 95% and sell say 80%, then the blackouts will happen. It didnt happen this year because theywere able to sell enough so that theh rest could be bought. The media buying tickeys is nothing new either dipshit, been going on for decades. But youre too arguementative as always and cant see the meaning behind the bong induced fog you spend all your time in.

Didnt say you had go to a game to be a fan. Only said it helps.

Finally, yes. HUGE! The money they make from parking alone is ridiculous. You have the nearly 80,000 that attend the game, then the some 20,000 that just hang in the lot and tailgate during the game. Who said it was bigger than TV revenue? That dont mean its small potatos. Its a shitload of money.

So in summary, not a fucking word of your post had any valid point. Just you thumping your chest like you know what youre talking about. I made the mistake of trying to make a reasonble arguement with a moron.

I should have just done what most here do and tell you how stupid you are and watch the fireworks as you pound away at your keyboard.

Fuck you're stupid.

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 11:21 PM

Wrong again, huh?

I wasnt wrong in the 1st place.

You said that owner could care less if they sell tickets. I say thats not rue and that you're a dumb motherfucker that dont know shit about the inner working of the finacial situaion in the NFL.

LMAO

You're the biggest fucking tool in this forum. I'd like for you to explain it to us all, Asshole.

To put a period on it, Ill just say this. The owners want attendance. The owners have always wanted to get people out from in front of the tv and pay for tickets. Its not a revalation.

Do the owners WANT attendance? Yes. Can they live without it sellouts every week? Absofuckinglutely.

You're a fucking fool to think otherwise and YOU clearly don't know a fucking thing about the NFL's finances.

But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say, because it should be quite entertaining to see someone talk out of their fucking fat ass.

As for blackouts, I said they sold off 95%. Im aware they sold off ticks to the media, so they could avoid a blackout. I never disputed that. But I did say they didnt see blackout because they sold enough tickets. A clear thinking person would understand that to mean, that with the current trend in dropping ticket prices, if the Chiefs cant sell 95% and sell say 80%, then the blackouts will happen. It didnt happen this year because theywere able to sell enough so that theh rest could be bought. The media buying tickeys is nothing new either dipshit, been going on for decades. But youre too arguementative as always and cant see the meaning behind the bong induced fog you spend all your time in.

Bong induced? First off, you half-dead bag of dicks, I don't do any drugs. Secondly, this paragraph is a jumbled bunch of fucking nonsense, but then again, that's nothing new for your stupid ass.

Finally, yes. HUGE! The money they make from parking alone is ridiculous. You have the nearly 80,000 that attend the game, then the some 20,000 that just hang in the lot and tailgate during the game. Who said it was bigger than TV revenue? That dont mean its small potatos. Its a shitload of money.

Really? Why don't you go ahead and tell us how much money the Chiefs would lose if they failed to sell enough tickets to avoid a blackout.

So in summary, not a fucking word of your post had any valid point. Just you thumping your chest like you know what youre talking about. I made the mistake of trying to make a reasonble arguement with a moron.

I should have just done what most here do and tell you how stupid you are and watch the fireworks as you pound away at your keyboard.

Fuck you're stupid.

LMAO

You're so high on fucking drugs that you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're speaking about.

Go fuck yourself, CrazyCunt.

CrazyHorse

03-14-2011, 11:23 PM

The owners made lots of concessions last time in order to avoid a strike and/or lockout. They told the union back then that they would likely opt out of the cba, which is why they built in the early opt out date. None of this is a surprise.

This is 100% correct. The owners said it when they signed off on the last deal they wouldnt be able to uphold the cba they signed off on. Now they are doing what they said they would have to do. The players have negotiated a sweetheart deal that has bid them out of a job. Now they need to lower thier demands so that they have a working contract for this fniacial climate.

The owners as far as I know are looking to scale back 1st round rookie pay. thats totally reasonable. The ones making the demands are players. Maybe some of those demands are reasonable. The only demands the owners are making is they want a bigger return on thier investment.

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 11:25 PM

This is 100% correct. The owners said it when they signed off on the last deal they wouldnt be able to uphold the cba they signed off on. Now they are doing what they said they would have to do. The players have negotiated a sweetheart deal that has bid them out of a job. Now they need to lower thier demands so that they have a working contract for this fniacial climate.

The owners as far as I know are looking to scale back 1st round rookie pay. thats totally reasonable. The ones making the demands are players. Maybe some of those demands are reasonable. The only demands the owners are making is they want a bigger return on thier investment.

You're the biggest ****ing tool in this forum. I'd like for you to explain it to us all, Asshole.

Do the owners WANT attendance? Yes. Can they live without it sellouts every week? Abso****inglutely.

You're a ****ing fool to think otherwise and YOU clearly don't know a ****ing thing about the NFL's finances.

But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say, because it should be quite entertaining to see someone talk out of their ****ing fat ass.

Bong induced? First off, you half-dead bag of dicks, I don't do any drugs. Secondly, this paragraph is a jumbled bunch of ****ing nonsense, but then again, that's nothing new for your stupid ass.

Really? Why don't you go ahead and tell us how much money the Chiefs would lose if they failed to sell enough tickets to avoid a blackout.

LMAO

You're so high on ****ing drugs that you don't have a ****ing clue as to what you're speaking about.

Go **** yourself, Crazy****.

See, thats much better. Pound that keyboard you simpleton.

Somebody is pissed!!!!

I wouldn't go around telling people you dont use drugs though. You cant be that stupid without a substantial effort.

You should probably move on. You've bitten off more than you can chew here.

KC Tattoo

03-14-2011, 11:33 PM

I feel sorry for the rookies. They're going to have a once in a lifetime experience ruined.

This. I think it is completely an unfair situation for the rookies this year. NFLPA want them to make less money, then tell them not to go to the draft. Owners want to show case the new merchandise to the public too. The draftees have waited and worked hard for this chance of a life time experience & recieve much earned recognition.

I wonder if they do go to the draft, how they would be recieved by the team come practice time? Would the vets snub the rookies as if they arn't apart of the unity?

So far I think things are going to get real ugly before any thing gets accomplished and a whole bunch of finger pointing going on. To me both sides are at fault.

"To the fans **** you very much & thanks for watching" / Owners, NFLPA

I did address it. I said they have been trying to get people out from in front of the TV and to the stadium since day 1. Its nothing new. Youre saying that because of a HD TV people dont go to games now. I have an HD TV, I still go.

People dont go because unemployment has been in the double figures.

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 11:42 PM

Youre saying that because of a HD TV people dont go to games now. I have an HD TV, I still go.

*I'm* not "saying" it. Roger Goodell has said it on multiple occasions over the past 2 years. Peter King has stated it in his weekly column as have other sports writers. It's an issue that cannot be overlooked.

People dont go because unemployment has been in the double figures.

That is unequivocally untrue.

Apparently, you didn't peruse the attendance link that posted earlier in this thread. The teams at the bottom of attendance have historically been at the bottom (Oakland, St. Louis, Detroit, Tampa Bay, etc.).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

The large market teams, the same teams that have ALWAYS have had strong attendance, continue to do so.

CrazyHorse

03-14-2011, 11:49 PM

*I'm* not "saying" it. Roger Goodell has said it on multiple occasions over the past 2 years. Peter King has stated it in his weekly column as have other sports writers. It's an issue that cannot be overlooked.

That is unequivocally untrue.

Apparently, you didn't peruse the attendance link that posted earlier in this thread. The teams at the bottom of attendance have historically been at the bottom (Oakland, St. Louis, Detroit, Tampa Bay, etc.).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

The large market teams, the same teams that have ALWAYS have had strong attendance, continue to do so.

Like KC?

Have I mentioned how fuckin stupid you are?

It's unequivocal.

Good night numbnuts

DaneMcCloud

03-14-2011, 11:58 PM

Like KC?

Have I mentioned how fuckin stupid you are?

It's unequivocal.

Good night numbnuts

Excuse me?

When was KC's last blackout?

Also, please explain how you're making the leap from poor football team with fans burned by Carl Peterson over the years, to a recession?

Where's your data?

The Chiefs averaged more than 67,500 people in attendance in 2010. A sell out is 72,000. So the Hunt Family missed out on 4,500 people for eight games (or 36,000 people) that didn't contribute to concessions and parking.

Would you like to share with us what financial ramifications those had for the Chiefs and then compare that to television revenues?

Thanks.

veist

03-15-2011, 12:00 AM

Those greedy ass SOB's can kiss my ass. The owners offered MORE than a fair offer and they snubbed their noses at them like they weren't offering enough BILLIONS to the players. You can take your dangerous occupation arguement and shove that up your keyster as well. My job is plenty dangerous and I get paid a small fraction of what the poor 'ol deprived millionairs get for playing one game a week for 1/3 of the year. If the multi-million dollar annual contracts isn't enough to justify the risk of injury, then take your pansy ass back to college or get a regular job like the rest of us blue collar workers. I back the owners 100% and would be willing to lose a year of football to put these panseys back in their place and be happy to make millions for playing a game for a living.

I'm glad that your years of labor negotiation experience and familiarity with the labor situation with the NFL tell you that the owner's offer was more than fair. Clearly you are an expert on the situation because you work at a dangerous job. Are you telling me if your employer was making shit loads of cash with growing revenue when HR told you "hey, you're going to have to take an 18% pay cut because this is unsustainable" and you find out that your employer was also secretly giving up revenue (oh yeah and you get a revenue sharing % too so they're stealing from you to do this) so that if they had to lock you out they have more leverage; you would happily say "Yes sir, you can have that money back. I didn't earn it anyway." No way in hell you would, so why do you expect the players to do it? I'm not saying you have to feel sorry for the players but backing the owners is asinine.

Just Passin' By

03-15-2011, 12:02 AM

This is 100% correct. The owners said it when they signed off on the last deal they wouldnt be able to uphold the cba they signed off on. Now they are doing what they said they would have to do. The players have negotiated a sweetheart deal that has bid them out of a job. Now they need to lower thier demands so that they have a working contract for this fniacial climate.

The owners as far as I know are looking to scale back 1st round rookie pay. thats totally reasonable. The ones making the demands are players. Maybe some of those demands are reasonable. The only demands the owners are making is they want a bigger return on thier investment.

First, the owners voted 30-2 in favor of the CBA in 2006, so stop pretending they went cussing and screaming. The two owners who voted against it were pilloried for doing so.

"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

Second, the league is the one who opted out and decided to go for a new deal. The league is the one that decided to demand an extra billion dollars a season.

Third, the players were willing to continue with the contract. They did not ask for anything extra.

The owners are the only ones making demands.

RippedmyFlesh

03-15-2011, 01:10 AM

Excuse me?

When was KC's last blackout?

Also, please explain how you're making the leap from poor football team with fans burned by Carl Peterson over the years, to a recession?

Where's your data?

The Chiefs averaged more than 67,500 people in attendance in 2010. A sell out is 72,000. So the Hunt Family missed out on 4,500 people for eight games (or 36,000 people) that didn't contribute to concessions and parking.

Would you like to share with us what financial ramifications those had for the Chiefs and then compare that to television revenues?

Thanks.

It's simple really.
TV revenues are measured in BILLIONS.
Revenue from tickets,parking,concessions is measured in millions.

Dave Lane

03-15-2011, 09:59 AM

This would be the first time I'd get to see a top 10 draft pick walk on the stage holding a Broncos jersey. :cuss:

Get used to it. Looks to me like you are at the extended stay motel.

Dave Lane

03-15-2011, 10:55 AM

I am curious if a major player pulled out of the draft and then annouced he would play for the highest bidder and had a mini Ebay style auction what would happen.

Sign me separately and don't waste your first round draft pick! Say Gabbert did this and the Chiefs could sign him without using a first round pick. Since there is no CBA they could do this.

Old Dog

03-15-2011, 12:37 PM

Since there is no CBA they could do this.

Didn't the previous CBA allow for the 2011 draft?

DaneMcCloud

03-15-2011, 02:41 PM

Didn't the previous CBA allow for the 2011 draft?

Yes

Dave Lane

03-15-2011, 02:48 PM

Couldn't you just pull out of the draft and act like a UDFA?

BigCatDaddy

03-15-2011, 02:50 PM

Educate me here guys. When the money is to be split with the players is that done like in the form of a salary floor + set beneifts or what?

Dave Lane

03-15-2011, 04:22 PM

Not really but I d think its all benefits and salary going to the players = roughly 55%. I'm sure the owners aren't going to add benefits on top of that.

Oh and your quote you have attributed to me is someone elses quote from the article I cut and pasted. I never said that personally.